Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk

Court of Appeals of Texas

Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk

DecidedNovember 14, 2002

Docket14-02-00481-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk (Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 14, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 14, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00481-CV

BYRON WALTER RUSK, Appellant

V.

BARBARA K. RUNGE and SHEILA ANN SPENCER RUSK, Appellees

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 96-18979

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a Decree Dividing Property on Remand and Judgment in Favor of Intervenor signed February 7, 2002. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 7, 2002, within ninety days of the judgment. The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. If appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, however, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

The clerk=s record in this appeal was filed October 3, 2002. The clerk=s record does not contain a motion for new trial or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, making the notice of appeal untimely. Appellant states in his notice of appeal that he timely filed both of these documents, however.

Accordingly, on October 10, 2002, this Court issued an order directing appellant to file a supplemental clerk=s record containing a timely filed motion for new trial or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law with the Clerk of this Court on or before October 25, 2002. In the order, the Court informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a supplemental clerk=s record containing documents necessary to demonstrate this Court=s jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

No supplemental clerk=s record has been filed. Appellant has not filed a request for an extension of time or other response to this Court=s October 10, 2002 order.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 14, 2002.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Hudson and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 14, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 14, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00481-CV

BYRON WALTER RUSK, Appellant

V.

BARBARA K. RUNGE and SHEILA ANN SPENCER RUSK, Appellees

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 96-18979

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a Decree Dividing Property on Remand and Judgment in Favor of Intervenor signed February 7, 2002. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 7, 2002, within ninety days of the judgment. The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. If appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, however, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

The clerk=s record in this appeal was filed October 3, 2002. The clerk=s record does not contain a motion for new trial or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, making the notice of appeal untimely. Appellant states in his notice of appeal that he timely filed both of these documents, however.

Accordingly, on October 10, 2002, this Court issued an order directing appellant to file a supplemental clerk=s record containing a timely filed motion for new trial or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law with the Clerk of this Court on or before October 25, 2002. In the order, the Court informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a supplemental clerk=s record containing documents necessary to demonstrate this Court=s jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

No supplemental clerk=s record has been filed. Appellant has not filed a request for an extension of time or other response to this Court=s October 10, 2002 order.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 14, 2002.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Hudson and Fowler.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Byron Walter Rusk v. Barbara K. Runge and Sheila Spencer Rusk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byron-walter-rusk-v-barbara-k-runge-and-sheila-spe-texapp-2002.